Erik Verlinde says no need for Dark Matter and Gravity is emergent

This is Ad-hoc reasoning more than an actual scientific counter-argument. He would have to demonstrate how vector potentials in the expansion can
directly effect the entropy in the neutron space state. You also confuse certain people in the scientific community refuting this as an ongoing raging
debate involving the entire scientific community. The Em drive also is "published" and has certain scientists responding to all of the excitement,
does that necessarily increase its validity?

The irony here being that you are employing an appeal to authority, when the shtick of you and the other contrarian geniuses on here is that you are
against appealing to authority and establishment science. The bottom line is that it does not fly as a cogent scientific argument, and until Verlinde
can come up with a mathematically consistent model that is consistent with all of the experimental results thus far (like the bound-states) and makes
testable predictions, it is of absolutely no interest and is about as physically relevant as are parallel universes.

Yes he has and that's why his papers are being hotly debated in the scientific community. Like I said I don't think you have even read his papers or
the recent papers that connect entanglement to gravity.

You said, you can also confuse other people in the Scientific community LOL. So everybody is stupid but you? Give me a break.

Show me where there's a recent update of the 2011 argument.

Show me where the Author of the 2011 argument has refuted anything Verlinde has said when Verlinde responded to the argument.

Show me a recent study or paper that uses this argument to try and refute Verlinde.

Like I said, you haven't even read the recent papers or updates so you're debating from the standpoint of blind ignorance.

Yes he has and that's why his papers are being hotly debated in the scientific community. Like I said I don't think you have even read his papers or
the recent papers that connect entanglement to gravity.

You said, you can also confuse other people in the Scientific community LOL. So everybody is stupid but you? Give me a break.

Show me where there's a recent update of the 2011 argument.

Show me where the Author of the 2011 argument has refuted anything Verlinde has said when Verlinde responded to the argument.

Show me a recent study or paper that uses this argument to try and refute Verlinde.

Like I said, you haven't even read the recent papers or updates so you're debating from the standpoint of blind ignorance.

Again, you are more interested in being "contrarian" than actually understanding the science at a fundamental level. Furthermore, you have now started
to construct strawmen and put words in my mouth. Clearly the disposition of those who are right!

The rabbit hole goes far deeper and even more troubling issues need to be addressed than the rather simple gravitational bound-states issue that can
only be explained consistent by a gravitational gauge-field. It is actually low-hanging fruit and the most obvious violation of entropic gravity, at
least in the way currently formulated by Verlinde.

Is it possible all of this wrong? Yes. Is it possible every experiment regarding our understanding of relativity and quantum fields is wrong?
Absolutely. Throwing all of that out in favor of Verlinde's musings is, unfortunately, not science. You can keep quoting Verlinde's ad-hoc
explanations as much as you like, but that won't make his speculations any more grounded in science than the first time you have done it.

It's obvious that you haven't read anything Verlinde said and you haven't bothered reading his papers. So you blindly post things without any
understanding.

You post a paper from 2009 when Verlinde's first paper was 2010 and you report another paper that doesn't directly challenge Verlinde but asks
questions about emergent gravity and there should be questions.

You're saying questions mean the theory is invalid. That's just kooky talk. There's still questions about General Relativity.

I can go on and on. Questions doesn't mean something is invalid. The problem you have is that you haven't even bothered to read Verlinde's papers so
you're just sniping from a point of blind ignorance.

I’m not sure this is it, and maybe it is wrong or not deep enough. Nonetheless my five cents from the top of my head:The simplest consequence of the
theorem is that you can’t “explain” gravitons as some composite particle (a la mesons), formed with two gauge fields coming from some gauge
symmetry e.g. som SU(N), in 4D.

Some way to avoid the theorem is by relating gauge fields in d dimensions and gravitons in d+1 (like in AdS/CFT). (Find more in pg 4, 5 of
arxiv.org... )

Thanks for the links. Interesting. Unclear to me how does his approach explains matter having certain form visually?
I understand his finite number of individual holo screens where all action takes place, not clear how he interprets 'holographic principle' he refers
to in his intro a lot without giving even two lines as how he understands it.

Another thing, he tries to tie temperature to a fact that number of 2D holo screens combined create some sort of a closed volume where matter becomes
discrete confined to physically present boarders (formed beyond which can not 'leak' any further and that is raising temperature which drives the
rest of his gravity concept). Not clear where he gets his 'temperature' from?

I only somewhat agree.

And this is not holographic principle at play. I will try to comment later about it to draw differences of what it is from what paper author suggests.

And he never explained how 3D visual arises...

To me, looks like when three events on three interlaced 2D surfaces create 3D object combining opportunity potential. Like, if in a dark room I shoot
three flash light beams and their beams form tri angle mutual spot at point of intersect sort of creating discrete volume room for matter to
occupy.

This would imply, of course, that three events on all three interlaced 2D planes must sync in location and time to project a 'physical product',
concrete physical object in the middle of all three, for example. The ones that not synced are passed as virtual potentials (virtual particles).

Side note: Cube shape must be most basic compare to sphere. In this context to accommodate cube six planes enough. We can view cube from all sides
that are equal and indistinguishable.

It's obvious that you haven't read anything Verlinde said and you haven't bothered reading his papers. So you blindly post things without any
understanding.

You post a paper from 2009 when Verlinde's first paper was 2010 and you report another paper that doesn't directly challenge Verlinde but asks
questions about emergent gravity and there should be questions.

These are non-contentions. Your fallacious argument amounts to using dates in establishing the veracity of a proposal or paper. If someone tomorrow
were to write a paper on methods that would allow measuring all observables of an elementary particle simultaneously, and I cited the constraints
imposed by the uncertainty principle and the postulates of quantum mechanics, shouldn't your response amount to "Why are you citing physics from 70
years ago? Why didn't you read the paper? Why didn't you go and talk with the author of the paper? You are obviously the one in the wrong!".

That is not how science works. Until Verlinde can produce convincing arguments that nullify the constraints imposed in those papers and theorems, not
to mention produce a viable model that fits the experimental data better than conventional models, very few people outside of a bunch of laymen on a
conspiracy site will take it seriously.

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: Diablos
You're saying questions mean the theory is invalid. That's just kooky talk. There's still questions about General Relativity.

You love putting words in people's mouths, don't you? For starters, I never made such a claim. I claimed that Verlinde's formulation of entropic
gravity violates established theorems in mathematical physics as well as experimental data. That is a completely different ballgame than simply
raising questions that a given model does not answer. But, maybe you are new to all of this.

Here you go again. Mathematical challenges and testing the limits of where a theory applies and where it breaks down does not imply all theories are
therefore equally valid or raise as many challenges. You continue to demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of the scientific method.

Oh, dear. It seems you don't understand what an initial-value-problem (IVP) actually is and are trying to cite it as a criticism of GR.

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: Diablos
I can go on and on. Questions doesn't mean something is invalid. The problem you have is that you haven't even bothered to read Verlinde's papers so
you're just sniping from a point of blind ignorance.

The real problem is I have, against my better judgement, continued to engage you and hopefully engage in your clear "open mind". I was absolutely
wrong.

I claimed that Verlinde's formulation of entropic gravity violates established theorems in mathematical physics as well as experimental
data.

You have no idea as to what you're talking about. You haven't even read either of Verlinde's paper.

Show me exactly in Verlinde's papers where he violates established theorems

Of course you can't do this because you haven't read them. Sadly for you, I like reading these papers. The only one you posted that's dated in 2012
after Verlinde's first paper, never responds directly to Verlinde when talking about The Weinberg-Witten theorem. The paper you posted is called
Challenges to Emergent Gravity. For some strange reason you want to equate challenges to mean it's invalid which is ASININE.

This is what is said:

It is this interaction of gauge invariance and Lorentz invariance that provides the loophole.‡

Now, if a model of emergent gravity reproduces general relativity above some length scale L, the same loophole should apply at that scale. The
question becomes whether the Weinberg Witten theorem restricts the model at shorter scales. Possible solutions include [14, 135]

If you bother to actually read the paper, you will see that the Author gives short shrift to this argument and tthe Author even knocks it down IN THE
PAPER YOU POSTED TO REFUTE EMERGENT GRAVILITY LOL! It goes on to say:

1. Broken Lorentz invariance: in analog models [19] and models in which the graviton is a Goldstone boson for broken Lorentz invariance [14, 133,
136], for instance, the fundamental degrees of freedom are not Lorentz invariant, evading one condition of the theorem.

2. Nonlocality: in Sundrum’s “fat graviton” model [137], and arguably the AdS/CFT correspondence, gravitons are nonlocal, and do not couple to a
local stress-energy tensor.

3. No spin two fields below L: if spin two fields first emerge at the same scale as general relativity, there is no room for the Weinberg-Witten
theorem to apply. For example, in models in which the background manifold is topological [29–32, 72], there may be no nontrivial conserved
stress-energy tensor at all at small scales.

4. Emergent spacetime: in type II models of emergence, the basic setting of the Weinberg Witten theorem, spin two excitations in a flat spacetime, is
absent at the fundamental level, though one must check carefully at larger scales.

This is why you need to actually read the papers that you post. He actually refutes your whole argument especially the argument when it comes to
Ads/CFT correspondence which is connected to entanglement and gravity as well.

Yes he has and that's why his papers are being hotly debated in the scientific community. Like I said I don't think you have even read his papers or
the recent papers that connect entanglement to gravity.

You said, you can also confuse other people in the Scientific community LOL. So everybody is stupid but you? Give me a break.

Show me where there's a recent update of the 2011 argument.

Show me where the Author of the 2011 argument has refuted anything Verlinde has said when Verlinde responded to the argument.

I personally believe that Verlinde's work deserves to be taken seriously but also recognize that there are sharp challenges and the work as it stands
doesn't successfully extend to quantum mechanical situations which have been investigated experimentally.

The interference pattern is influenced by gravity; but it is not destroyed by gravity which is what would happen if you were assuming that the
neutron actually interacts with many more degrees of freedom that are responsible for the distance-dependent entropy. Those degrees of freedom would
constantly "measure" the neutron and destroyed the interference pattern.

Entropic gravity provides a mechanistic explanation for gravity (unlike classical gravity which assumes it a priori), but that mechanistic explanation
is still wrong when applied directly to quantum mechanical neutrons which are in clearly quantum-interfering states, and show experimentally clean
patterns agreeing with classical gravity.

So entropic gravity is not yet a theory of quantum gravity even less than classical gravity + Schroedinger equation.

Getting dark matter right quantitatively (2016) is a nice find, but I don't think the theory is remotely close to being settled.

Entropic gravity may still yet be a 'large N limit' of something else as yet undiscovered.

We have shown that if we conjecture that the source of thermodynamic system, ρ and p, are also the source of gravity: (ρ + p)gravitational source =
(ρ + p)thermal source, thermal quantities, such as entropy, temperature, and chemical potential, can induce gravitational effects, or gravity can
induce thermal effects. For Newtonian approximation, the gravitational potential is related to the temperature, entropy, chemical potential, and
particle number, which implies that gravity is entropic force only for systems with constant temperature and zero chemical potential. For general
case, gravity is not an entropic force. Whether the results obtained here can be generalized to the case of modiﬁed gravity, such as F(R) gravity
[10] and F(G) gravity [18], is worthy of investigation. All the analyses have been carried out without assuming a speciﬁc expression of temperature
or horizon. For a static system at thermal equilibrium in general relativity, the temperature of the perfect ﬂuid may take the form, T√−g00 =
const., which is called the Tolman temperature [34–36]. Whether the temperature in Equation (1) can be taken as Tolman temperature is also worthy of
further investigation. The results we obtained conﬁrm that there is a profound connection between gravity and thermodynamics

file:///C:/Users/New%20User/Downloads/entropy-16-04483%20(1).pdf

From 2015...

Abstract
General theory of relativity (or Lovelock extensions) is a dynamical theory; given an initial conguration on a space-like hypersurface, it makes a
denite prediction of the nal conguration. Recent developments suggest that gravity may be described in terms of macroscopic parameters. It nds a
concrete manifestation in the uidgravity correspondence. Most of the eorts till date has been to relate equilibrium congurations in gravity with
uid variables. In order for the emergent paradigm to be truly successful, it has to provide a statistical mechanical derivation of how a given
initial static conguration evolves into another. In this essay, we show that the energy transport equation governed by the uctuations of the
horizon-uid is similar to Raychaudhuri equation and, hence gravity is truly emergent.Essay for the Gravity Research Foundation essay competition in
2015

Thanks for the links. Interesting. Unclear to me how does his approach explains matter having certain form visually?
I understand his finite number of individual holo screens where all action takes place, not clear how he interprets 'holographic principle' he refers
to in his intro a lot without giving even two lines as how he understands it.

Another thing, he tries to tie temperature to a fact that number of 2D holo screens combined create some sort of a closed volume where matter becomes
discrete confined to physically present boarders (formed beyond which can not 'leak' any further and that is raising temperature which drives the
rest of his gravity concept). Not clear where he gets his 'temperature' from?

I only somewhat agree.

And this is not holographic principle at play. I will try to comment later about it to draw differences of what it is from what paper author suggests.

And he never explained how 3D visual arises...

To me, looks like when three events on three interlaced 2D surfaces create 3D object combining opportunity potential. Like, if in a dark room I shoot
three flash light beams and their beams form tri angle mutual spot at point of intersect sort of creating discrete volume room for matter to
occupy.

This would imply, of course, that three events on all three interlaced 2D planes must sync in location and time to project a 'physical product',
concrete physical object in the middle of all three, for example. The ones that not synced are passed as virtual potentials (virtual particles).

Side note: Cube shape must be most basic compare to sphere. In this context to accommodate cube six planes enough. We can view cube from all sides
that are equal and indistinguishable.

cheers)

Fourier transform and
one more better article, point to consolidation and
forming of matter packets ideas. Something to read and think about.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.